Shared facilities: A model for forest-dependent communities in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In May of 1999, the Wood Enterprise Centre Shared-use Manufacturing Facility in Quesnel, British Columbia opened its doors to the public, with the aim of job creation and economic stimulation in the forest-dependent community of the North Cariboo. By providing value-added wood producers access to the costly high-tech equipment required to be competitive in this sector, this unique facility gives young companies the opportunity to become successful without bearing the prohibitive capital costs of machine acquisition. By all accounts the facility is a success, with eighteen new jobs having been created in the region to date. This study discusses various models of shared use that forest-dependent communities could deploy. It also outlines some of the exploratory research (site visits around North America) that ultimately helped to shape the centre and the manner in which it operates. It is hoped that results of this study will be used by regional development agencies who are considering, or are in the midst of, developing and implementing a shared facility to stimulate growth in economically recessed forest communities. Key words: shared facilities, shared-use manufacturing, co-operatives, business incubators, multi-tenant facilities, forest-dependent communities, value-added wood products, regional economic development
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".